Political Epistemology, Experts, and the Aggregation of Knowledge

Spontaneous Generations 1 (1):36 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Expert claims routinely “affect, combat, refute, and negate” someone or some faction or grouping of persons. When scientists proclaim the truth of Darwinism, they refute, negate, and whatnot the Christian view of the creation, and thus Christians. When research is done on racial differences, it affects, negates, and so on, those who are negatively characterized. This is why Phillip Kitcher argues that it should be banned. Some truths are too dangerous to ever inquire into, because, he reasons, even by inquiring we legitimate the negation that racial distinctions already carry. Expert claims also favour or disfavour policies or decisions which have factions or persons supporting them.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-18

Downloads
40 (#398,223)

6 months
13 (#194,827)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen Turner
University of South Florida

References found in this work

Science, truth, and democracy.Philip Kitcher - 2001 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Science, Truth, and Democracy.A. Bird - 2003 - Mind 112 (448):746-749.
Public Opinion.Charles E. Merriam - 1923 - International Journal of Ethics 33 (2):210-212.
What is the Problem with Experts?Stephen Turner - 2001 - Social Studies of Science 31 (1):123-149.

View all 10 references / Add more references